Read the full judgment text of FAMV 000033/2005 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 5 January 2006 before Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – Court of Appeal granting leave subject to additional conditions under s.25 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 – whether appeal lies against order imposing conditions – cabin attendant injured on board aircraft operated by employer – negligence action – trial judge finding employer 50% to blame – Court of Appeal (Le Pichon and Yuen JJA, Rogers VP dissenting) upholding finding – Court of Appeal granting employer leave to appeal to CFA subject to additional conditions requiring it to pay employee's costs in the CFA whether or not appeal allowed and not to seek costs in courts below if appeal allowed – employee applying to Appeal Committee for leave to appeal against conditions – whether such an application is competent – test from Hunt & Winterbotham (West of England) Ltd v. BRS (Parcels) Ltd [1962] 1 QB 617 applied – conditional grant to be treated as refusal – no appeal lies against order imposing additional conditions – proper course is to apply to Appeal Committee for leave without conditions – Appeal Committee may grant leave without conditions or refuse leave – applicant withdrawing application after being warned of risk of refusal – leave granted by Court of Appeal with all conditions remaining extant – substantive appeal to proceed – consequential timetable directions made – costs of withdrawn application awarded to respondent on common fund basis with legal aid taxation – guidance given to legal profession on handling of additional conditions imposed under s.25(2)(a) and (b) of Cap. 484.
Legal issues: Whether an appeal lies to the CFA against a Court of Appeal order making its grant of leave subject to additional conditions
Outcome: Cathay withdrew its application for leave to appeal after being warned it could be refused. The leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeal (with all conditions, including the additional ones) remained extant, and the substantive appeal was directed to proceed to the Court of Final Appeal on that basis.
Cited by 1 case